Kids Sportswear Inc - Essay Example

Issue(s): (1) whether Hong Kong is a “foreign state,” such that Matimak is a “citizen or subject” of a “foreign state”; (2) whether Matimak is a “citizen or subject” of the United Kingdom, by virtue of Hong Kong’s relationship with the United Kingdom when it brought suit; and (3) whether any and all non- citizens of the United States may ipso facto invoke alienage jurisdiction against a United States citizen.Holding: 1) No, 2) No 3) NoReasoning: The fact that the Hong Kong Companies Ordinance may be “ultimately traceable” to the British Crown is too attenuated a connection.

Matimak was incorporated under Hong Kong law, the Companies Ordinance 1984 of Hong Kong, and is entitled to the protection of Hong Kong law only. Cf. Codec Trading Ltd. v. United Am. Coal Sales, Inc., 556 F.Supp. 722, 723-24 & n. 2 (S.D.N.Y.1983) (holding that corporations of the Channel Islands, a province which is part of the United Kingdom proper, governed by British law, and whose foreign affairs are entirely controlled by the United Kingdom, is a citizen or subject of the United Kingdom); Compare St.

Germain v. West Bay Leasing, Ltd., No. 81-CV-3945, at 6 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 1982) (holding that a corporation of the Cayman Islands, whose corporate law is clearly independent of the United Kingdoms, is not a citizen or subject of the United Kingdom). Matimak is not a “citizen or subject” of a foreign state. It is thus stateless. And a stateless person—the proverbial man without a country—can not sue a United States citizen under alienage jurisdiction. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir.1983); Sadat v.

Mertes, 615 F.2d 1176, 1183 (7th Cir.1980); Concurring/dissenting opinions: The failure to recognize Hong Kong as a “foreign state” or as a “citizen or subject” of the United Kingdom is contrary to the purposes of alienage jurisdiction.